Broadoak Grange

Updated 1 July 2026

Date of Inspection: 7 September 2026 to 8 September 2026. Broadoak Grange is a care home without nursing, registered to support up to 33 older people living with dementia and physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection 26 people were living at this service.

This assessment was carried out due to the length of time since the last inspection.

The provider was in breach of 4 legal regulations related to consent to care and treatment, safe care and treatment, safeguarding, and good governance.

People were supported by kind and caring staff who understood their individual needs and worked effectively with healthcare professionals to promote joined-up care. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and sought to support people to make decisions about their care wherever possible.

However, the provider did not always ensure risks to people were adequately assessed, understood or managed. Care plans and risk assessments lacked sufficient guidance for staff and were not always accurate, person-centred or reflective of people's current needs. Records were not consistently complete, contemporaneous or aligned with the care provided. Medicines were not always managed safely, and staff did not always have the information, training or competency assessments required to safely carry out delegated healthcare tasks and medicine-related responsibilities.

The provider was not meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Mental capacity assessments and associated decision-making processes were not always completed in accordance with MCA principles, records did not consistently demonstrate decision-specific assessments, and people were not always supported through a lawful and robust decision-making process. Oversight of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards was also ineffective.

Environmental and infection prevention and control risks had not always been effectively managed. Recruitment processes were not sufficiently robust to ensure all staff were suitable for their roles, and systems for ensuring staff received appropriate training were not consistently effective.

Governance, auditing and quality assurance systems were ineffective and had failed to identify and address the widespread concerns found during the inspection. These included issues relating to care planning, risk management, medicines management, MCA and DoLS, recruitment, infection prevention and control, staffing oversight and record keeping. Although the management team responded positively to inspection feedback and had begun implementing improvements, further work was required to ensure people consistently received safe, effective and well-led care.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to concerns found at this assessment in relation to consent to care and treatment, and safeguarding.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.

Updated 1 July 2026

People described staff as kind, caring and responsive, and told us they felt safe living at the service. Comments included, “I am a lot safer than I was at home”, “Staff treat me lovely” and “The staff are fantastic, out of this world.”

We spoke with people using the service and their relatives. Where this was not possible, we observed people’s interactions with staff to help us understand their experiences of care and support.

Whilst CQC found people’s care had shortfalls in relation to the standards we expect, overall people and relatives were satisfied with the care they and their family member were receiving.

People and relatives told us staff treated them with dignity and respect, and kept families informed about changes in health and care needs. One relative said, “[Staff] treat [person] with respect, dignity and kindness,” while another told us, “[Staff] tell me everything.”

People were generally positive about the food, healthcare support and overall quality of care. One person said, “It’s very good here, the staff are very good.”

The main area of concern raised by people and relatives was the lack of meaningful activities and stimulation. Several people described spending long periods sitting in communal areas with limited engagement. Comments included, “[Person] doesn’t do anything,” “I thought there would be more things,” and “Better stimulation, can’t fault anything else.”

Overall, people and relatives spoke positively about the care staff provided and the support people received, although many felt more meaningful activities and opportunities for engagement were needed.